Fri 4th Oct: SL SF: Hull KR v Warrington Wolves KO 20:00 (Sky)

[Padge]

13 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I do find this flawed. Because at times we see stuff like tonight go up as no try. But that wouldn't make sense because if unsighted it should be try, and if they send it to as no try, the ref is saying he saw it not grounded. And that shouldn't need a second opinion. So that isn't the method they use.

Silverwood was critical of the decision on twitter. It's a shame Ian Smith is no longer on there i believe as he always offered good perspective and explanations on process on stuff like this.

See my following post above.

[Dave T]

10 minutes ago, WN83 said:

Williams doesn't have a long kicking game of any note, so that isn't strictly true (but I do agree that in other areas he's in front). I thought Lewis and Williams had off nights tonight tbh but I would pick them as the pairing for that first test unless it is guaranteed to be played in torrential rain. If that is the case, Smith is the man to try and play the conditions and get in to that game of percentages by kicking Samoa deep in to their half. Other than that I just don't think we can ignore the form Williams and Lewis have been in and Lewis has developed his kicking game in recent months. 

Williams was pretty good tonight. We moved the ball well and he was a key part of that. In that second half, he was running the show pretty much.

[tjhrads93]

11 minutes ago, Worzel said:

I think Wire have been great this season, and there’s no doubt in my mind that Burgess will move them on even further next year. 

Tonight’s game was a proper play-off match. Real intensity. Wire threw the kitchen sink at Rovers in the last 15 minutes and I think any other side would have buckled. Those are the sort of periods where being at home does seem to make a difference, and I reckon Warrington would’ve won at your place. 

Been a really good season all-in I think. Tomorrow’s semi is another great story. The best team in the comp against a side who have been playing knock-out rugby for 18 weeks now, surprising everyone. And a local derby in front of 20,000 to boot.

If people can’t enjoy rugby league this season, then they should probably choose another sport eh. 

Completely agree mate, for a number of reasons this has been the season I have become reinvested in the sport after a couple of so so years.

Delighted for KR and a brilliant year all round.

[Ullman]

1 hour ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

I assume your butler has given you the bad news. 

I don't think he'll be ironing tomorrow's Hull Daily Mail.

[Click]

4 minutes ago, Worzel said:

I watch Rovers week-in, week-out. We play a very defined system, with Minchella as the pivot. Tonight’s tactics were the right response to losing him for one match and having a second row fill his spot.

If we were missing Mini for longer than one game, we’d do something different to adapt the system and you’d see more proactivity from the halves. Watch May tonight too, same story. It was a game plan, for one game, and we won the game. 

This is one of Peters’ key differences as a coach from the Smith era. The detail around planning is off the charts, Rovers’ sets are almost robotic. 

Ok, sure. You can think that. Personally I think the emotion got a bit too much, so he wasn't able to play his usual game. Rather than it being just the coach's plan. 

Epitomised by him kicking it dead on his first kick of the game.

Guess we will find out how he takes the pressure and emotion next week.

[phiggins]

32 minutes ago, Wilderspoolmemories said:

Which in effect is totally wrong. 

Surely any benefit of doubt should go to the defending team? We have to be sure that a try has been scored to award a try, not just think that one might have been scored. 

If we are going to continue to award false scores that end a teams season, then we are going to continue to make a mockery of our sport. 

 

I don’t think it should be simply a case of benefit of the doubt to the defending team. But the benefit of the doubt should go in favour of what we know has definitely happened. For example last week, we knew Makinson has definitely grounded the ball, there was a suggestion he was in touch but we didn’t know that for sure so the decision is a try. 
For Burgess’ try tonight we seem to have given a try despite the fact that nobody has actually seen a try be scored. I’m not sure how that happens. 
 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Padge said:

People seem to be confusing different scenarios here.

Ref sees a try scored but didn't see the ball grounded, therefore he awards a try, even though the ball may have not been grounded, benefit of the doubt.

Ref sees a player held up but wants to ensure he didn't miss a grounding sends up as no try, he has no reason initially to award a try but players and maybe other officials may have a strong enough case to cause for the ref to get it checked or he may just want to be sure he didn't miss something.

They sound similar but are quite different.

Its the same way they often check for off-side from kicks and in touch for close corner calls. It tends to go up as a try unless another official has doubts.

Its bloody simple. Its a logical system, just take the emotion out.

 

 

Your third paragraph is the reality of tonight though. Watch Moore trying to move into a position to see the ball well after the ball carrier is held - the video shows that he is well held up by that point - so the ref has never seen it grounded (otherwise why would he still be trying to find the grounding well after its stopped, if there was a grounding, it came early.?).

The only real explanation here is if the touch judge has said he saw it grounded.

[Harry Stottle]

53 minutes ago, Padge said:

The Laws of the game say that he should, explicity written in.

And for those who don't know, if the TJ thinks it is a try he stands goal line of the corner flag, If TJ thinks it is no try he stands field side of the corner flag.

[Click]

37 minutes ago, Wilderspoolmemories said:

Which in effect is totally wrong. 

Surely any benefit of doubt should go to the defending team? We have to be sure that a try has been scored to award a try, not just think that one might have been scored. 

If we are going to continue to award false scores that end a teams season, then we are going to continue to make a mockery of our sport. 

 

No. The benefit of the doubt has gone to the attacking team for years.

[Click]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Your third paragraph is the reality of tonight though. Watch Moore trying to move into a position to see the ball well after the ball carrier is held - the video shows that he is well held up by that point - so the ref has never seen it grounded (otherwise why would he still be trying to find the grounding well after its stopped, if there was a grounding, it came early.?).

The only real explanation here is if the touch judge has said he saw it grounded.

It's the one I am clinging too 

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Click said:

Ok, sure. You can think that. Personally I think the emotion got a bit too much, so he wasn't able to play his usual game. Rather than it being just the coach's plan. 

Epitomised by him kicking it dead on his first kick of the game.

Guess we will find out how he takes the pressure and emotion next week.

I thought his kicking game was strong, but it was in the back of good field position. He did little else, and was less effective when Wire started to win territory. But I think that's all as you'd expect.

Hopefully that was his average game out of his system and he stars next week.

[StandOffHalf]

Yeah, Burgess goes low and then the ball is clamped by Drinkwater.

This wasn't a clear grounding scenario, where the ref's view/path of vision was obstructed. It was a held-up situation.

Send it up No Try and have it looked at for evidence of any grounding. No controversy.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Click said:

It's the one I am clinging too 

I think it's the only one that can make real sense.

[Padge]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Your third paragraph is the reality of tonight though. Watch Moore trying to move into a position to see the ball well after the ball carrier is held - the video shows that he is well held up by that point - so the ref has never seen it grounded (otherwise why would he still be trying to find the grounding well after its stopped, if there was a grounding, it came early.?).

The only real explanation here is if the touch judge has said he saw it grounded.

The ref has to watch everything until the play stops, he can't switch off thinking oh well that's that then and then someone gets a poke in the eye, eight point try fouled in the act of scoring. Also if there is a secondary grounding it make his job easier.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Padge said:

The ref has to watch everything until the play stops, he can't switch off thinking oh well that's that then and then someone gets a poke in the eye, eight point try fouled in the act of scoring. Also if there is a secondary grounding it make his job easier.

Cool. I assume we always see refs moving round like that to get a better view every time a try is scored with tacklers on him?

 

Edited October 4 by Dave T

[Padge]

Just now, Dave T said:

Cool. I assume we always see refs moving round like that to get a better view every time a try is scored with tackles on him?

 

Well I see them doing it regularly.

[WN83]

8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Williams was pretty good tonight. We moved the ball well and he was a key part of that. In that second half, he was running the show pretty much.

Aye, a fairer summary would probably be that he had an iffy first half but much improved second. He did grow in to the game as it went on, as did Wire. He's so talented Williams though and I made that point last week that in his time with Wigan he rarely gripped hold of the biggest games and made them his. Tough to do that with a lack of territory in the first half mind and he is getting better on that score looking at him last week. 

[Gates1]

33 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

You put it rather harshly, but I kind of thought the same.

He came across as a bit inane compared to Hall's measured words.

He did, just looked very unprofessional and better to be poker faced in my view.  

The pundits giggling didn't really help either.

All looked childish and unprofessional and will probably the most viewed clip, from what was a good game.  Not a good look.

[Dave T]

Just now, Padge said:

Well I see them doing it regularly.

 

1 minute ago, WN83 said:

Aye, a fairer summary would probably be that he had an iffy first half but much improved second. He did grow in to the game as it went on, as did Wire. He's so talented Williams though and I made that point last week that in his time with Wigan he rarely gripped hold of the biggest games and made them his. Tough to do that with a lack of territory in the first half mind and he is getting better on that score looking at him last week. 

He was the best half on the pitch by some distance in an SL semi final.

In reality, as the chief playmaker at Wire, he oversaw the team create more than enough chances to win. Inches here and there meant we weren't good enough to win, but he certainly did his job imo.

[Click]

I know they technically play different positions - 6 & 7. 

But if Williams was the one playing behind KR's pack rather than Lewis tonight, he would have had numerous try assists. 

[WN83]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

 

He was the best half on the pitch by some distance in an SL semi final.

In reality, as the chief playmaker at Wire, he oversaw the team create more than enough chances to win. Inches here and there meant we weren't good enough to win, but he certainly did his job imo.

I agree he was but he's talented enough to do more and play better than he did tonight IMO. I think back to a guy like Danny McGuire, who I don't actually think was as talented as George Williams is but he had a career littered with match winning moments in the biggest games. Those types of moments have always seemed to evade Williams and I'm not sure why. 

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, WN83 said:

I agree he was but he's talented enough to do more and play better than he did tonight IMO. I think back to a guy like Danny McGuire, who I don't actually think was as talented as George Williams is but he had a career littered with match winning moments in the biggest games. Those types of moments have always seemed to evade Williams and I'm not sure why. 

I think you're maybe expecting stuff from Williams that he just won't ever deliver. McGuire was a certain kind of player, and finishing tries off will always get you glory. That isn't what Williams deliver. 

But Williams has been superb week in week out for Wigan, Canberra and Wire, as well as in internationals. I just think you are probably unfairly expecting him to be a player he isn't.

[Worzel]

22 minutes ago, Click said:

Ok, sure. You can think that. Personally I think the emotion got a bit too much, so he wasn't able to play his usual game. Rather than it being just the coach's plan. 

Epitomised by him kicking it dead on his first kick of the game.

Guess we will find out how he takes the pressure and emotion next week.

Players make mistakes under pressure. That’s life. I don’t expect perfection, even Shaun Edwards and Ellery Hanley made mistakes.

Hull KR just beat the 3rd best side in the league, a team with the best half-back in the comp, without our most important player, and Lewis organised us with the ball in hand to grind out the metres we needed to make that happen. I’ll take that every day of the week and twice on Sundays. In fact, I’ve prayed for something like that every weekend for 39 years. 

[Worzel]

13 minutes ago, Click said:

I know they technically play different positions - 6 & 7. 

But if Williams was the one playing behind KR's pack rather than Lewis tonight, he would have had numerous try assists. 

“Williams is better than Lewis” isn’t an argument anyone will have an issue with. He’s the best half-back in the comp, and pulled up trees in the NRL. He should be better. 

It doesn’t throw any shade on Lewis though. They’re very different players, in very different systems, at different stages of development. 

[Padge]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think you're maybe expecting stuff from Williams that he just won't ever deliver. McGuire was a certain kind of player, and finishing tries off will always get you glory. That isn't what Williams deliver. 

But Williams has been superb week in week out for Wigan, Canberra and Wire, as well as in internationals. I just think you are probably unfairly expecting him to be a player he isn't.

Its not just about Williams, but about who plays along side, with him. If the others don't read him then his brilliance gets wasted. A player like Williams needs players who are determined to support him. It seems to someside happen but not regularly.

One thing I would say though is that I think his no look pass hs become a bit predictable and not many seem to fall for it anymore, as soon as he looks right players know he is passing left (a bit simplistic but I am sure you get my drift).